|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
William F Pokorny <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>
> Ah, I see now too Gilles did have it there. Thanks.
>
> I got a couple small renders done yesterday - with and without the
> emission - and compared them. At a high level adding in emission the
> color of the background sky makes the clouds look as if they are sitting
> in a hazy atmosphere without having modeled the hazy atmosphere. See the
> attached image.
>
> The difference image on the right shows an aspect or pitfall of the
> method - depending on one's goal I suppose. Once one or more color
> channels for the media 'interval' being sampled is maxed out (Red here),
> you get a 'disjoint' color-hue change in the media due the emission
> adder.
>
> >
> > I remember your image - very impressive.
>
> Thanks - though I certainly don't play in your artistic league. :-)
>
> Bill P.
Interesting. I wouldn't have thought the effect of small emission value is that
strong. I've to do more tests...
Norbert
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15/03/2018 21:56, Norbert Kern wrote:
> "s.day" <s.d### [at] uelacuk> wrote:
>
>> Wow, this is an amazing scene. Making me want to dust off my povray skills (hope
>> I haven't forgotten too much).
>>
>> Sean
>
>
> Hi Sean,
>
> it's time to come back...
>
> Norbert
>
Seconded!
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Horvath <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
>
> Wow, very nice! I like the poofy-yet-hazy clouds and the grass especially.
>
> :)
>
>
> Mike
Thanks Mike,
the grass is an old mesh I used in my "boreal" image
(http://hof.povray.org/Boreal_big.html). Here I subdivided the mesh via PoseRay
-a very useful tool.
The 8 bit heightfield was enhanced by the method of Jaimes Vives Piqueres to get
a more detailed HF map
(http://www.ignorancia.org/en/index.php?page=Heightfield_based_Isosurfaces).
Norbert
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Norbert Kern" <nor### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
> a comment on the present conditio humana.
>
>
> Norbert
Nicely done! I salute you :D
Dan
roadkillpuppy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/15/2018 06:01 PM, Norbert Kern wrote:
> William F Pokorny <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
...
>>
>> I got a couple small renders done yesterday - with and without the
>> emission - and compared them. At a high level adding in emission the
>> color of the background sky makes the clouds look as if they are sitting
>> in a hazy atmosphere without having modeled the hazy atmosphere. See the
>> attached image.
>>
>> The difference image on the right shows an aspect or pitfall of the
>> method - depending on one's goal I suppose. Once one or more color
>> channels for the media 'interval' being sampled is maxed out (Red here),
>> you get a 'disjoint' color-hue change in the media due the emission
>> adder.
>>
...
>
> Interesting. I wouldn't have thought the effect of small emission value is that
> strong. I've to do more tests...
>
> Norbert
>
>
Sorry slow - busy with real life.
Emission is stronger by nature because the emission intensity increases
with depth of media. If you want to 'sort of' match a scattering
intensity with an emission media, you have to add absorption at about
the same value as the emissive value (1).
I've always used scattering+absorption, emission+absorption or
emission+scattering. Never all three - intentionally at least - as
Gilles did here (2).
Bill P.
(1) - An idea on my to play with list is some method to pre-render or
pre-calculate scattering with attenuation media so as to be able to
create a faster emission+absorption or a scattering without attenuation
+ absorption media model for use in follow-on renders.
(2) - I've wondered some recently about whether POV-Ray should support
two absorption specifications given Gilles technique looks useful.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/15/2018 05:53 PM, Norbert Kern wrote:
> Alain <kua### [at] videotronca> wrote:
>
> You are right with the intervals 1 issue.
> If it wasn't a Gilles Tran code, i'ld have checked more carefully...
>
> Meanwhile I rendered with intervals 1 and samples 70.
> It's not faster, but the result is slightly better.
Thanks for running again this way and reporting the speed! Your result
lines up with my recent experience and what I see in the media code as
I've been trying to digest it. In the code, intervals and samples end up
both combining to drive the number of initial samples taken.
If you need 70 initial samples to resolve the smaller/rapid changes in
your cloud or your shadows - you need them - no matter the intervals /
samples combination to get them and the performance won't be much
different due the initial specification. In some ways needing a higher
number of initial samples with a media is like needing a high
max_gradient value with isosurfaces due the function used.
In any case, intervals 1 is the way to go with method 3 for quality
always - and often enough the 'density/shadow function' will be such
that the adaptive method 3 with intervals 1 and a low samples setting is
much, much faster.
Bill P.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19-3-2018 18:31, William F Pokorny wrote:
> On 03/15/2018 06:01 PM, Norbert Kern wrote:
>> William F Pokorny <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> ...
>>>
>>> I got a couple small renders done yesterday - with and without the
>>> emission - and compared them. At a high level adding in emission the
>>> color of the background sky makes the clouds look as if they are sitting
>>> in a hazy atmosphere without having modeled the hazy atmosphere. See the
>>> attached image.
>>>
>>> The difference image on the right shows an aspect or pitfall of the
>>> method - depending on one's goal I suppose. Once one or more color
>>> channels for the media 'interval' being sampled is maxed out (Red here),
>>> you get a 'disjoint' color-hue change in the media due the emission
>>> adder.
>>>
> ...
>>
>> Interesting. I wouldn't have thought the effect of small emission
>> value is that
>> strong. I've to do more tests...
>>
>> Norbert
>>
>>
> Sorry slow - busy with real life.
>
> Emission is stronger by nature because the emission intensity increases
> with depth of media. If you want to 'sort of' match a scattering
> intensity with an emission media, you have to add absorption at about
> the same value as the emissive value (1).
>
> I've always used scattering+absorption, emission+absorption or
> emission+scattering. Never all three - intentionally at least - as
> Gilles did here (2).
>
> Bill P.
>
> (1) - An idea on my to play with list is some method to pre-render or
> pre-calculate scattering with attenuation media so as to be able to
> create a faster emission+absorption or a scattering without attenuation
> + absorption media model for use in follow-on renders.
>
> (2) - I've wondered some recently about whether POV-Ray should support
> two absorption specifications given Gilles technique looks useful.
Aha! This is an interesting notion I was not aware of. I am going to
follow that up. Thanks!
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |